State v. Rice, 149 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. 1941). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Rice, 149 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. 1941). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1946 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1946 1986 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Moore
Mo. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
In Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Mo.App.1973), the court ruled, “To support such action on the part of the court, there must be some ‘good reason’ arising during the trial [State v. Rice, 347 Mo. 812 , 149 S.W.2d 347, 348 [1,2] (1941) ] or ‘exceptional circumstances’ [State v. Boone, 355 Mo. 550 , 196 S.W.2d 794, 796 [3] (1946)].” (Emphasis added) Appellant is entirely correct in his contention that there was no misconduct at trial to warrant restraint, so the only “good reason” must be shown by “exceptional circumstances”.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bibbs v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
To support such action on the part of the court, there must be some “good reason” arising during the trial [State v. Rice, 347 Mo. 812 , 149 S.W.2d 347, 348 [1, 2] (1941)] or “exceptional circumstances” [State v. Boone, 355 Mo. 550 , 196 S.W.2d 794, 796 [3] (1946)].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Meeks
Mo. · 1970 · confidence medium
Reciting that an accused is entitled to be brought into court for his trial free from shackles or bonds, State v. Rice, Mo., 149 S.W.2d 347, 348 [1]; that bringing the defendant into the presence of the jury in handcuffs gives the jury the impression that the defendant is a dangerous man not to be trusted, State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 593 ; and that a defendant is substantially prejudiced by being brought before the jury in handcuffs unless he has done something to justify restraint, State v. Rice, supra, State v. Yates, Mo., 442 S.W.2d 21, 27 [17], appellant contends the court erred in denying…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State
v.
Edward Rice, Alias Bob Rice, and Homer Hight, Appellants
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Apr 3, 1941.
149 S.W.2d 347
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Arthur O'Keefe, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. The shackling of the appellants was not error. 16 C.J., p. 819; State v. Craft, 65 S.W. 280, 164 Mo. 651 ; State v. Temple, 92 S.W. 494, 194 Mo. 228 ; State v. McKeever, 101 S.W.2d 22 , 339 Mo. 1083 .
Tipton.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
TIPTON, P. J.

In the Circuit Court of Jasper County at Carthage, Missouri, the appellants were convicted of first degree robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, to-wit, a pistol, and their punishment assessed at forty years’ each in the State penitentiary.' From this sentence they have duly appealed to this court.

Appellants have not filed a brief in this court; we will, therefore, examine their motion for new trial. The errors assigned in the motion are: The court’s permitting the sheriff to keep appellants shackled during the empaneling of the jury; the refusal of the trial court to grant them a continuance; and the prejudicial argument of the prosecuting attorney.

Since appellants did not raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in their motion for new trial, it Avill not be necessary to state the facts in this ease.

The record shows that appellants asked the court to declare a mistrial because they were brought into court in the presence of the entire jury panel handcuffed together. The court refused the request and stated, out of the presence of the jury, that on a previous occasion when court was being held at Joplin, the sheriff advised the court that one of the appellants had removed his handcuffs, that they had been hard to take care of, and that the sheriff was justified in using every precaution to safeguard their custody. The record does not show if the handcuffs were removed or if they were kept on appellants during the trial, but it does show that they were handcuffed in the court room in the presence of the entire panel,

[*814] “It has been held by this court, following the cominon-law rulé, that when a prisoner is brought into court for trial, upon his plea of not guilty to an indictment for a criminal offense, he is entitled to make his appearance free from all shackles or bonds (State v. Kring, 1 Mo. App. 438; State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591; State v. Craft, 164 Mo. 631; State v. Buclolph, 187 Mo. 67), and to justify the keeping of shackles upon the prisoner during the trial, there must arise, durimg the trial, some good reason therefor based upon the conduct of the prisoner, in the absence of which such action would be improper and would deprive the defendant of a substantial legal right, to his prejudice.” [State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 228, l. c. 235, 92 S. W. 494.]

In the ease of State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, the defendant made an assault upon a person in the court room three months before the trial. This court held that fact did not justify the trial court in permitting the defendant to be shackled, and reversed the case.

In this case neither appellant did anything dttring the trial that would justify the court in permitting them to be handcuffed in the presence of the jury in the court room, and their rights were substantially prejudiced.

It therefore becomes unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised as they will probably not reoccur in the next trial.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the case remanded. It is so ordered.

All concur.